Archive for the “LifeStyle Choices” Category

A real man is someone who can control his urges.  He shows that he is the master of his passions instead of his passions being master over his dick.  What woman is not attracted to this kind of strength?  Not many, I assure you.

The problem today is that we don’t have enough men in our society…just a bunch of dickheads.

Comments No Comments »

Get your kids out. Now.

Comments 2 Comments »

Incredible. One of the best presentations on the subject of sex and contraception.  These guys deserve a medal for this presentation.


Comments 3 Comments »

Do you run a business or a non-profit? Are you looking to reach more people? Thinking of advertising online? Don’t advertise on Facebook. Read the rest of this entry »

Comments No Comments »

This was one of my favourite cartoons, growing up (1978).  Check out what is said at the 5:44-5:58 mark.

Comments No Comments »

Comments No Comments »

Why You Shouldn’t Sleep With Your Boyfriend

Comments No Comments »

Dr. Nutt has developed an alcohol substitute that he said mimics the relaxation and sociability that comes with drinking, but comes without many of drinking’s nasty side effects, such as aggression and addiction. Take a pill, and the effects disappear. (Source)

Any Christian with basic formation knows that the one attribute that distinguishes humans from every other life form on earth is our spiritual soul which provides us with intellect and free will. This is the Crown Jewel of our “anatomy”, which makes us human rather than animal. One should not forfeit such a treasure without proper cause.

Dr. Nutts’ invention, while well-intentioned, doesn’t avoid drunkenness. Intellect and free will would still be forfeited for a brief time of pleasure. Who knows how much harm a drunk will do before he takes the magic pill. And who’s going to feed it to him? Certainly the drunk won’t look after himself.

The claims of “no addiction” are also misleading. Any recovering alcoholic or junkie will tell you that the chemical addiction is only part of the problem. The biggest challenge is the mental and emotional addiction to the flight from reality. Dr. Nutts’ invention won’t change that either.

This whole notion of getting drunk without the side effects strikes me as a further step down the infantilization of society. People want pleasure 24/7 without any of the consequences. That’s how children think, not adults. That childish attitude spills over into every aspect of life and inevitably leads to a generalized abandonment of personal responsibility. It’s also a testament to how sad people are, deep down. Happy people don’t need to get drunk.

Only Christ can fully redeem our disordered desire for drunkenness and the impulses which drive us to seek it. Only He can bring the peace and joy that drunks seek by fleeing reality. No cosmic force or magic brew will do.

Comments No Comments »

No less the fate for abortionists and their supporters.

Comments No Comments »

You’ve probably heard that the Supreme Court has struck down federal laws regarding prostitution. Regrettably, this turns back the clock with respect to the advancement of women’s rights, equality, and dignity. Of course, there exist some male prostitutes. However, since the vast majority of prostitutes are women,  they are the group suffering violence from this ruling.

Canadian society has generally shunned prostitution, for good reason. Most Canadians intuitively know that prostitution is beneath the dignity of women. No woman, regardless of her financial or emotional distress, should feel that prostitution is her only recourse. Women deserve so much better than that. Read the rest of this entry »

Comments 1 Comment »

Despite economic indicators pointing to a recovery, the US economy is still deep in the dumps. I genuinely feel sorry for the Americans described below.  Their situations must be unbearable. 

In all but two quarters since the beginning of 2011, “hair,” “eggs,” or “kidney” have been among the top four autofill results for the Google search query, “I want to sell my…,” according to Nicholas Colas, chief market strategist at New York-based ConvergEx Group, which provides brokerage and trading-related services for institutional investors.

While Americans can legally sell hair, breast milk and eggs, the sale and purchase of a kidney in the U.S. is against the law.

“The fact that people even explore it indicates that there are still a lot of people worried about their financial outlook,” said Colas, who tracks off-the-grid economic indicators. “This is very much unlike every other recovery that we’ve had. It’s going to be a slow-grinding, very frustrating recovery.” (Source)

It’s at desperate times like these when you can measure the true moral fibre of a nation. We’re seeing that nothing is sacred any more, not even the bodies of the living. Sad times, both economically and morally.

Pray for America.

Comments 2 Comments »

Read below and weep.

Why the hell is the government recommending that kids up to grade four show their genitals to other people and touch the genitals of adults? They’re obviously not talking about the parents because they already bathe their kids and see them naked. So they’re talking about other adults in the kids’ lives.

Tell me something. If a six-year old kid of your acquaintance asks if he/she can show you their genitals, would you say yes? I didn’t think so. What type of adult do you think will take these kids up on their offer? What kind of adult would let the kid touch their own genitals? Exactly. Does the government not realize that they’re inviting pedophiles to take advantage of children under the auspices of a government-endorsed parenting guide?

The kids haven’t even reached puberty and the State wants them looking at porn, masturbating, pretending to be the opposite sex and sticking objects up their rectum? Is this some sick joke?

Forget China. This is state-sanctioned child abuse right here in Canada. The PEI government should be sued. 

Excerpt from the PEI guide:

“Natural and Healthy” behaviours for children up to age five include:

- “Touches the ‘private parts’ of familiar adults and children with hand or body.”
- “Puts something in own genitals or rectum one time for curiosity or exploration.”
- “Plays ‘doctor’ inspecting others’ bodies, including ‘private parts .’”

“Natural and Healthy” behaviours for children up to grade four include:

- “Plays ‘doctor’. The child inspects another child’s body, including ‘private parts’.”
- “Shows others his/her genitals in a private location.”
- “Plays games with same-aged children related to sex and sexuality.”
- Pretends to be opposite gender.
- “Wants to compare genitals with peer-aged friends.”
- “Looks at nude pictures on the Internet, videos, magazines, etc.” (Source)


Comments 1 Comment »

Now that’s a huge shock, isn’t it?


Comments No Comments »

From the 1921 encyclical, Sacra Propediem, by Pope Benedict XV; more relevant than ever: 

From this point of view one cannot sufficiently deplore the blindness of so many women of every age and condition; made foolish by desire to please, they do not see to what a degree the indecency of their clothing shocks every honest man, and offends God. Most of them would formerly have blushed for those toilettes as for a grave fault against Christian modesty; now it does not suffice for them to exhibit them on the public thoroughfares; they do not fear to cross the threshold of the churches, to assist at the Holy sacrifice of the Mass, and even to bear the seducing food of shameful passions to the Eucharistic Table where one receives the heavenly Author of purity. And We speak not of those exotic and barbarous dances recently imported into fashionable circles, one more shocking than the other; one cannot imagine anything more suitable for banishing all the remains of modesty.


What some of the slut walkers don’t get is that covering up protects their dignity as women.  The problem is – as it is with many of this age – is that they want their cake (hot to trot) and eat it too (treated with respect).  It’s a communist idea:   all of the fun but with none of the consequences.  It’s also an implicit rejection of original sin.


Comments No Comments »

stop being so fuddy duddy.

From the same fools who asked “How does same-sex “marriage” affected you?”

Comments No Comments »

A Belgian man [sic] has been killed by medical euthanasia after claiming that a botched sex change operation had turned him into “a monster.”

Nathan, born Nancy, Verhelst, 44, was given legal euthanasia, most likely by lethal injection, on the grounds of “unbearable psychological suffering.” (Source)

Please pray for this woman. She had a sex-change operation to become a man, but she didn’t like the result. Bad things happen in your mind when you deny your identity. Under Belgium’s warped euthanasia-on-demand law, she qualified to be put down by a doctor.

She apparently suffered rejection as a child, with her mom wishing that she had been a boy. Brutal. Pray for her soul and for others like her. I don’t suppose the feminists will raise too much of a stink about this, given how they typically side with the euthanasia crowd.

I don’t mean to get technical here, but this was no euthanasia. Euthanasia generally implies hastening somebody’s death when they’re already terminally ill. This was clearly an assisted suicide. But those are trifles.

Comments 1 Comment »

takes on a whole new meaning….like everything else in this screwed up world.

Comments 1 Comment »

TORONTO, July 23, 2013 ( – As evidence mounts regarding the influence former Ontario Deputy Minister of Education Dr. Benjamin Levin exerted in developing the province’s temporarily shelved “sexual diversity” sex-ed curriculum, it has been revealed that the alleged child pornographer also criticized criminal background checks for adults working with school children.  Read the rest of this entry »

Comments 1 Comment »

Dumb-ass atheists and liberal  just don’t get it.

Comments 2 Comments »

By squeaker

A lot of the problems surrounding immodest dress stems from an incomplete realization, by both women and men, of just how weak men can be when it comes to visual distractions. Most Catholic men talk a good talk when it comes to chastity and modesty. They have the best of intentions and try hard, but deep down inside they struggle badly with it. This is the rule rather than the exception. Just ask any priest who hears confessions.

Men are wired that way. God knew that the human race would not perpetuate if the decisions to reproduce were left solely to detached and disinterested intellectual calculations. Hence, He created a very strong sexual instinct for both sexes, but more aggressive, intense and relentless in men who are generally called to initiate relationships.

However, as a result of Original Sin, these impulses leave men very vulnerable and in dire need of help from women to minimize unnecessary stimulation. Men get easily aroused and distracted, sometimes without even realizing it or willing it. If an attractive woman sitting in the front pew starts playing with her long hair, I can assure you that dozens of men will have their eyes drawn to her (this is part of the rationale for veils). The same is true when a woman walks in wearing a short skirt or spaghetti straps. Time spent looking at a woman means less time spent listening to the Word of God or uniting themselves to the prayers of the mass.

Obviously, men remain responsible for their thoughts and actions. But they could use some help. Women may not realize how easily men are tempted. It’s like a reflex. It happens automatically and requires a conscious effort of the will to undo. Just as it would be cruel to tempt a recovering alcoholic with some booze, I would argue that immodest dress has an analogous effect. Nobody would dare say to the recovering alcoholic that his struggles are “not my problem” and that he needs to get a grip on himself. We’re called to exercise compassion for the weak. And men are certainly weak in this area, especially in this sexualized culture where stimuli are omnipresent.

Scientists have studied this phenomenon. Experiments were developed where men were asked to wear special glasses with an embedded camera that would record everything they looked at during some social situations. Afterwards, the scientist would review the recordings with the man, who was himself astounded at some of the things his eyes were drawn to without even realizing it. So even men don’t fully understand how weak they are.

The Church has developed objective norms on modest dress that apply not only with a church but for everyday life. Under Pope Pius XI, the following instruction was issued:

“A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat, which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows, and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent material are improper.” (Source)

A few years later, the Church said that sleeves reaching halfway between the elbow and the shoulder would be “temporarily tolerated“, apparently because women were having trouble finding clothes with sleeves reaching the elbow.

I would add a special tip to women when riding a bike: avoid a loose top. I hate to be graphic, but as you’re bending over your handle bars, a loose top exposes everything.

If you visit Rome today, many churches will not let you enter unless your attire conforms to the above standard. Although it was issued specifically for women’s dress, I think the same standard should be applied to men too. Men are equally responsible to dress modestly because women can also be distracted by immodest dress. However, women are much less vulnerable in this respect because male fashions don’t typically reveal as much as women’s fashions, but also because women’s minds are not as readily hijacked by sexual impulses as is the case for men.

We all have a part to play in bringing about the Kingdom. We’re not supposed to live like the world. We’re supposed to be visibly different. Modest dress is one part of the equation. When I’ve quoted the above teaching from the papacy of Pius XI to Catholic women, they almost universally agree and approve of it. Yet, I’ve seen these same women wearing see-through blouses or spaghetti straps, even in a church. Some of my friends who have spent their entire adult lives arguing for chastity and modesty have, on their wedding day, worn a strapless dress and ordered the same for all the bridesmaids. I don’t understand the contradiction. We can do better.  

It’s certainly a sacrifice to adjust one’s wardrobe and endure extra sweat in the summer, but it’s worth it to avoid being a stumbling block for others. I’ve thrown away shorts that didn’t reach my knees. At 6 feet 2 inches, it’s hard for me to find shorts that are long enough. But I manage. I’ve renounced tank tops even though people tell me that I have an athletic build. I don’t take off my shirt when I’m walking down the street (that’s kind of vulgar). And I always wear pants to mass regardless of the heat. It’s not as hard as it may seem. None of this makes me a hero, but just a worthless slave following orders (cf. Luke 17:10). Anybody can do as much.

The call for modest dress among women — both in church and elsewhere — is not an accusatory wagging of the finger, but rather a plea for mercy for your brothers in Christ who try eagerly to respect your dignity but who need some help.


Addendum on the definition of modest dress:

The definition of modest dress cited above was issued by the Cardinal Vicar of Rome on September 24, 1928 in response to an order by Pope Pius XI one month earlier, on August 23, 1928, for the implementation across Italy of a “Crusade Against Immodest Fashions, Especially in Schools Directed by Religious”. This initiative was led by the Sacred Congregation of Religious. The Cardinal Vicar’s definition was part of the letter sent to all Bishops of Italy in September 1928 ordering them to implement this initiative. Given this context, the definition bears more weight than a simple statement by the Cardinal Vicar.

In 1930, Pius XI asked the Sacred Congregation of the Council to issue a letter to the Church throughout the entire world requiring all persons in authority to combat immodest dress. Some elements of the 1928 initiative were extended globally. Although, the definition of modest dress was not contained in the 1930 letter, the context and sequence of events seem to imply that Pius XI had in mind the same definition he was using for the Italy-wide initiative.

Comments 6 Comments »